iLearn is ugly, cumbersome, and easy to hate. That said, it serves a purpose as an out-of-class way to access course information and classmates. I would postulate that iLearn is trying to strike a balance (a balance, I will hypothesize, they should shift in a more liberal direction). Coopman cites that “students were much more likely to go off task when using Palace [the graphically-intense LMS] than when using the text-only discussion software” and Professor Hanley asks about the role of aesthetics in such a forum. Maybe iLearn is purposefully ugly, cumbersome, and easy to hate.
Well, OK, iLearn probably doesn't want us to hate it, but I think it might not be too far off. I have long thought that my distaste for visiting iLearn was one of its failings, but perhaps that’s what they’re going for. I visit iLearn only on a need-to basis, maybe once per week for each class that uses the tool). I visit Ning and other tools related to our 790 class at least 3 times that amount. My posts to iLearn on that basis, while only posted because they’re “required,” are entirely academic and well-formed. When I make a post to iLearn, I first write it up in Word, proofread it, and otherwise treat it as a formal assignment. When I post to Ning or to my blog for 790, I treat it much more informally—something I think iLearn is probably afraid of. There’s probably no single reason for these differences, but I can pin down a few. I’ll talk about my own experiences with New Media to hopefully make a point about why iLearn needs a serious update and reconsideration of its values.
On the one hand, my posts to iLearn, as they are purpose-driven, are more formal, academic, and well-thought-out. On the other hand, I’m only going there to post. Because the interface is ugly, difficult to use, and slow, I’m much less inclined to read content posted by my classmates. It’s not a discussion, but rather a dumping ground for course-related content. Even when a professor is trying to force a discussion in iLearn by requiring posts that respond to classmates’ posts, I’ll do it extremely minimally. This is something that marketed products like this discover the hard way—their product sinks or swims based on their users: if their product is hard to use, then no one will use it; if no one uses the product, then it will die. iLearn doesn’t have to pass that tests because students are forced to use it; there is no reason to push to improve it because students will use it regardless.
I think textbooks learned a lesson a long time ago that New Media forums need to learn today. Old textbooks (on a higher education level, anyway) are free of pictures, graphics, exotic fonts, and fun facts, probably because the textbook publishers were afraid of exactly the same thing New Media producers are: off-task students distracted by the pretty colors. Textbooks have learned, though, to try harder to maintain students’ interest. iLearn needs to learn to do the same. As it is, I’m much more likely to discuss normal classroom activity with classmates using an instant messenger or email. That isn’t true for 790: I think I’m more inclined to post to my blog or to the Ning forum, something I would never even consider for iLearn. The interfaces are more interesting, so I’m more likely to use them.
I use Ning, my blog, and our RSS feeds multiple times per week. They’re all easy to access, use, and read. To steal Professor Hanley’s terminology, they’re aesthetically pleasing, as well as simple. Those two criteria are essential for New Media products, academic or otherwise. Complicated but pretty products, as well as ugly simple ones get tossed to the wayside. Ease of use and aesthetically pleasing interfaces make me more inclined to participate in a discussion in an online forum.
All that said, I recognize that there are pitfalls to the more “fun” space. Posts are more likely to ramble, conversations might spiral “off task” as Coopman puts it, and I can see a devolution into appropriateness happening, especially on a level where the students are not in graduate school. I think there are ways around those things, though, that don’t push LMSs into iLearn-like products which students avoid. I also think that it might not be such a bad thing to have off-task discussions happening in these online spaces. I think it might be beneficial for students to be a bit freer here. Certainly, every post might not be incredible, polished, well-thought-out, or even on-task, but there would still be a discussion happening. And I don’t think it would be possible for the students to forget that the space they’re in is academically oriented. Conversations, more often than not, would at least cursorily have to do with the subject matter, I’d suspect. Let the super-structured form of learning take place in the physical classroom, and the more free-roaming educational exploration take place online. Just because hierarchies are upset in an online environment doesn’t mean that they’d stay that way in the classroom. It’s not hard to see that people behave differently online than they do in person—why shouldn’t the same be true of online learning?
I think one of the greatest benefits of online learning is a phenomenon discussed by Coopman about a study done by Lobel in 2005: “in the in person classroom, students tended to address their comments toward the instructor or other identified expert. In the online class, students interacted more directly with each other.” I see this happening even in my graduate seminars (and catch myself doing it, too). Speaking in public is difficult, even in front of a small group of “peers.” Participation in an online forum has far fewer social implications. It’s no secret that people are much more likely to state (strongly) their opinions in online forums, and it’s not just because of the possibility of anonymity. I think people hone-in on the instructor during discussions, not only because of the authority he holds, but because it’s easier to talk to one person than it is to talk to twenty, and the instructor is the one that most needs to hear what you have to say. I’m no sociologist, but I’d speculate that it’s because you don’t feel everyone’s eyes on you. You can clearly articulate your thoughts without many of those nervous hesitations that accompany public speaking. Many of us, especially as readers, are probably more comfortable writing than we are speaking. I think this is generally true of many people, and why it’s important to make these LMS online communities easy to access and use: it’s likely to give the silent students voice, and encourage them to talk to each other, rather than divert to an instructor.
Seminars, to a great extent, are largely meant to do away with the hierarchical structure of the lecture. Because of the way people behave in such a forum, though, that medium is limited in its capacity to do its job, and I’d say that the limitations increase as educational levels decrease. Online forums such as the one employed by iLearn have an even greater capacity to limit hierarchy than seminars, but only if the system allows it to happen. As discussed by Coopman and Kotcamp, those systems do very little to facilitate the destruction of hierarchy in their spaces. It’s extremely important, especially in graduate school, to get over the sense that one has to talk to the professor as the authority.
Learning should be collaborative, and, at least to some degree, students and professors should learn together (I’d argue that this is at least partly true on all levels—degrees, of course). New Media, like LMSs, have a great capacity to bridge the gap, but if that’s indeed what they’re trying to do, they need to try harder, be less afraid of “off-task” students, and more encouraging of participation.
